A Handful of Dust (1988)

Typically British

So, I'm a little late. I'm trying to find good British movies. American movies are terrible. This movie is well written, cast, acted, and produced. In short, Tony, the husband is a nut-case (albeit a nice one). Besides Brenda, he is in love with an old, really, really old house. Naturally, Brenda, the wife, gets bored, really bored. She would have to be because she finds her "fun" in another really boring, poor, younger,wimpy mama's boy. Old story told a million times. But from this point on, this story is really different. I enjoyed the twist. It's one that you could never guess. I liked the movie. It's understated as are most British films and I like that. I like their actors. For the most part, they are classically trained and it shows. I give it four stars because the British mumble a lot. That's the bad news. The good news is that you have to keep playing it over and over to figure out what the heck they said. March 26, 2008

Unusually Strong Cast for a TV Movie

"A Handful of Dust," (1988), based on Evelyn Waugh's famous novel by the same name, a jazz-age satire, was made by London Weekend Television, which invested in an unusually strong cast for a television movie. Perhaps as a result of this, the film received theatrical distribution, by Miramax, in the United States.

The film stars James Wilby as Tony Last, so involved in trying to live a nineteenth century lifestyle, and keep his estate Hettam afloat, that he fatally fails to notice his wife Brenda (Kristin Scott Thomas) is bored silly. Rupert Graves appears as John Beaver, (he's what they used to call a bounder); Brenda mistakenly turns to him for solace and fun. (And, of course, by doing so, she gives London's bored silly smart set something to gossip about.) Dame Judi Dench plays Mrs. Beaver, John's opportunistic, shop-owning mother. Anjelica Huston appears as the helpful Mrs. Rattery; Stephen Fry as Brenda's callous brother. Alec Guinness turns in a bravura performance as Mr. Todd, a man you don't want ever to meet. But it can truthfully be said that each of the actors makes the most of his/her part.

The movie is beautifully filmed on location, in Brighton, East Sussex, and London, England. Carlton Towers, Selby, in the north of England, North Yorkshire to be precise, stands in for Hettam. "Dust" then moves on to what's supposed to be the Brazilian jungle, though it's actually filmed in Venezuela, around Angel Falls, the world's third highest. (Of course, we're to understand that this jungle is only slightly more bloodthirsty than that of London society.)

As is fairly well-known, movie and book are based, in part, on the breakup of Waugh's first marriage, and Waugh surely gets the last word on that (although the understanding is that Brenda's supposed to be stupid, as well as selfish, and Scott-Thomas is too smart, and observant, to be able to play stupid). Waugh then, it's said, was at a loss as to how to finish this work, so he combined it with a previously-published short story set in the Brazilian jungle: because of legalities, he was actually unable to use this ending when the book was published in the States, and had to come up with another.

"Dust" is handsomely filmed, and costumed, its cars and interiors are a treat, and it's got its author's flashes of mordant wit. The acting can't be faulted. But it's ultimately a downer, as is Waugh's book: these characters give us little to admire, and sure won't live happily ever after.

August 26, 2007

No subtitles??

Beautiful scenery and good acting, but this DVD does not hav e subtitles as the initials CC would indicate. These British actors are hard to understand, especially the leading lady. March 23, 2005

Beautifully Filmed But For Me A Waste of Time

I recently saw Brideshead Revisted which I found completely wonderful. It was perhaps one of the most enjoyable and captivating films I've ever immersed myself in.

So, hungry for more Evenlyn Waugh (whose books I read in a college course that was based exclusively on his work), I found "A Handful Of Dust" at my library and figured I'd give it a try. Since the same author wrote it and the film was made by the same film people as Brideshead I was filled with anticipation.

My wife and I watched the first hour or so one night and while it had some good moments, and was certainly beautifully filmed, we were left cold by it. But we figured maybe after that the movie would develop.

So we decided to continue it the following night. Big mistake!

I only wish I could get back the time I wasted on it. While I don't expect "Happy endings" in a film (Brideshead certainly didn't have a "Happy ending") the ending in this story left me in disbelief.

Since I didn't read this particular book by Waugh and didn't know its ending, I was completely unprepared when the credits started rolling that the movie ended as it did. I was amazed by the stupidity of all I had just witnessed.

I thought the story would have been much more interesting to see if Tony would "toughen up" a little, transform and grow from the circumstances of his "captivity" rather than just look like a pathetic fool.

Perhaps the only redeeming aspect of the movie was watching Brenda get what she deserved, still it wasn't enough to justify watching this film.

This film was basically a "series of unfortunate events", with myself feeling most unfortunate of all.

My wife to her credit fell asleep during the last part of the film and used the time more wisely than I did.

Compared with a film like Brideshead Revisited, where the characters really developed throughout the story and took on a tremendous amount of depth, This story, was full of one dimensional characters. Dressing these characters up with beautiful costumes and scenery, well written music and excellent cinematography still didn't save the story from being like a bad "twilight zone" episode.

If you look up my reviews, you will see that I don't go out of my way to give bad reviews, but I was so annoyed by the time I wasted I felt I need to share this. Of course I have just wasted more time in connection with this film by now writing this review, but I felt maybe I could spare someone else the wasted time.



January 26, 2005

If "Requiem for a Dream" were a period peice film ...

I will admit, I was not a fan of this film during the first fifteen minutes when it nearly went into the "Period Film Sleeping Bag" category, but after you get through this first hump (which is to wean out the naysayers) this is a very disturbing and thoughtful film. In fact, I loved it. It took me awhile to think about it after the first viewing, but I was very impressed. Not only did this film break the boundaries of the dreaded "Period Piece Snore-fest", but also the standard of some films dating after 1988. When I watch films from the 80s, I normally do not see this caliber of writing and intensity. While it may have been around, most films were not ready to dive headfirst into it yet, but apparently Charles Sturridge has no fear. Instead, he gives us a biting story about social decline and satire, while all the while luring us deeper into this very depressive world. Amazing actors, an extremely powerful story, and an ending that will knock your socks off, A Handful of Dust was an unexpected, yet much needed, surprise.

Feeling like a combination of Requiem for a Dream and Angels & Insects, this period piece film offers more than just torrid love affairs and snobbery, it gives us this brief, yet powerful, glimpse into a world turned upside down by the squandering of a woman. I don't mean to sound sexist, but Sturridge does paint a picture where Kristin Scott Thomas' portrayal of Brenda does not paint a pretty picture of the perfect marriage. When Tony is left time and time again with John Andrew while Brenda is off gallivanting around London with John Beaver, our emotions are not placed within Brenda's arms, we care about Tony and his reaction if he were to ever discover the truth. Unlike other period piece films, we sympathize with the husband in this case, and ultimately open so wide to him that when the dramatic, and bizarre, ending occurs, we are left flabbergasted. It almost doesn't compute, but then you think about it and realize that Sturridge is a brilliant director using techniques well beyond his time.

Kristin Scott Thomas does a great job with the material that she is given. Her puppy-dog eyes seem to flutter and keep James Wilby's Tony at bay. I think that is what fascinated me about her character was that she portrayed this feeling of innocence, yet she was in complete control of the situation. That is why I think Rupert Graves' character was the most underappreciated of them all. While some will see him as the villain of his film, I saw him as just a random person that happened to fall in love with a woman that reciprocated back, and happened to see the advantages of falling in love with her. He wanted to get rich quick, and this was his answer. Thomas could have stopped at any time and went back into the arms of Tony, but she chose not to, even with all of her innocence. Guinness surprised the daylights out of me with his role in this film, well, I guess he always does. Then there was Wilby, the most multi-layered character of the film. He showed us all the true love does exist, and that good husbands do as well. He did nothing wrong during the course of this film, yet somehow felt life hit him the most. The events that happen during this film continually to the ending happened directly to him, not really to anyone else. That surprised me. Here was a man that had all the money in the world, a gorgeous house, and a family, but found that luck was never on his side. Together, these three powerful plays hurdle through a tough film to give some genuine thought-provoking performances.

Then there was Sturridge who did his homework secretly in the darkness of his own basement to help bring this film to the silver screen. Most of Hollywood would have probably changed the story to bring about some final satisfaction. This is not the case with Sturridge who keeps the mood and themes of the film in constant view of us. We consider these people high society, with their hunting moments and huge houses, but the reality of it is that they face the same troubles that we, the normal person, do daily. They may have money, but they are human, and that is what Sturridge keeps with us during the course of the 118 minutes. He captures your attention with the characters, throws in some Twilight Zone scenes, and allows your imagination to work overtime. Anytime that a director pulls your mind into a film, the battle is already half won. This was my kind of film.

Overall, I was very impressed. This film broke me of my feeling that all period piece films were bad and dull, and had me drooling for more. While I know that not all will be like this, I cannot wait to see what other directors will dive headfirst into this untapped pool. The cinematography was pure 80s, the actors did their parts, and Sturridge brilliantly colored the themes and satires. I was surprised (and still shocked) by this film and cannot wait to show it to others ... now that is the true test of a great film.

Grade: ***** out of ***** January 19, 2005

More reviews at Amazon.com ...